Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sham Lal Son Of Shri Jaila Ram R/O V.P.O. ... vs The State Of Haryana on 7 November, 2012

Author: K. Kannan

Bench: K. Kannan

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH
                                     CWP No.21355 of 2008(O&M)
                                     Date of Decision: 07.11.2012

Sham Lal son of Shri Jaila Ram R/o V.P.O. Khanora, P.O.
Jamalpur Sekha, Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad.
                                                    ... Petitioner
                             Versus
The State of Haryana, through its Financial Commissioner and
Principal Secretary, to the Government of Haryana, Department
of Local Bodies, Haryana Civil Secretariat Chandigarh and
others.
                                               ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

Present:None for the petitioner.
        Mr. Kartar Singh, DAG, Haryana.
                              *****
        1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to
          see the judgment? NO
        2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO
        3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the
          digest? NO

K. KANNAN, J. (Oral)

1. On 13.02.2009, the petitioner made a request to file some application. It is not clear what the prayer was and what application he wanted to file. Subsequently, when the case came up for hearing on 30.10.2012, the petitioner was making a claim for higher standard pay scale and this Court had directed him to file appropriate proof of his entitlement to such higher scale. The case is posted finally today. There is now a written request for adjournment stating that the petitioner could not be reached by phone. It could hardly be a justification for non-compliance of the directions already given. The prayer for adjournment is declined.

2. The writ petition is dismissed for default.

7th November, 2012                            ( K. KANNAN )
Rajan                                              JUDGE